In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we willnot publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.

This thread should be used to cache copies of comments left at EN&V, so that we can calibrate just how much dissent the DI is willing to publish.

Wesley, your MASSIVE hypocrisy is showing, and so is that of your sycophants. You posted your incredibly hypocritical remarks on Panda's Thumb, even though Panda's Thumb censors and moderates comments, and bans people who "dissent".

It is astounding to me that you won't see that you condone the exact thing that you're bitching about. The DI may be run by hypocritical people but you've got no room to condemn them unless you advocate completely open, free speech here and on Panda's Thumb, and everywhere else.

How can you live with yourself? Why aren't you bitching about Panda's Thumb moderating, censoring, and banning??

--------------The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

How can you live with yourself? Why aren't you bitching about Panda's Thumb moderating, censoring, and banning??

he said without fear of being moderated, censored, or banned. what a maroon

Really? Then why is this in the lower right corner of every post here?

"Report this post to a moderator"

If you find the "report this post to a moderator" message offensive just use firefox and install adblock plus. You then don't have to see it anymore.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

And why don't any of you bitch about the moderating, censoring, and banning on Panda's Thumb, the Bathroom Wall, Pharyngula, and here? Is it only considered moderating, censoring, and banning when YOU'RE the ones who aren't allowed to say whatever you want, where and when you want?

Do any of you own a mirror?

--------------The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

Of course, you might want to discuss it with the scientists and scholars themselves. To that end, comments will be allowed on selected articles. All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.

In two further posts I'll discuss additional off-base critiques of intelligent design in Synthese.

(emphasis not in the original)

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Then why do you or anyone else here think you can shit in DI's living room, without them having a problem with it? In other words, what are you bitching about??

Is it ok for you to have double standards, but not for them? Did it ever occur to any of you that they get sick and tired of ad hominem attacks that are based simply on your arrogance and biases?

Have any of you ever considered that it you were to use actual, verifiable evidence in your arguments against them, instead of arrogant name calling and insults and a bunch of lame inferences, that you just might be able to make strong points that are hard to refute? If nothing else, you'd at least look like you're trying to use intelligent arguments instead of just looking like a bunch of monkeys throwing shit. You guys make science look real bad. No wonder so many people don't trust science.

--------------The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

How can you live with yourself? Why aren't you bitching about Panda's Thumb moderating, censoring, and banning??

he said without fear of being moderated, censored, or banned. what a maroon

Really? Then why is this in the lower right corner of every post here?

"Report this post to a moderator"

Ever heard of spam?

Have you read the posting rules? Here are a few that show that spam isn't the only thing against the rules. If this site actually enforced its rules you would all have been banned long ago.

# MetaRule 1) DO NOT respond to inappropriate messages with a message.# MetaRule 2) DO NOT enter inappropriate messages.

No obscenity or foul language. There is no need to express a message in vulgar language.

Messages which insult or attack an individual are not appropriate. As those messages should be regarded as inappropriate, it is also inappropriate to follow up such a message with a reply. Use email for such correspondence, or to register a complaint with the moderator(s). Pointing out gaps in fields of reference (otherwise known as "ignorance") is *not* an attack.

Messages making claims about the actions, beliefs, or intentions of identifiable participants are an implicit call for discussion. The claimant is responsible for such claims. Failure to retract unsupported claims about other participants is grounds for banishment.

*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse.

# :Annoying: The state of being a hindrance to harmonious, or even interesting, discussion. Repeatedly being annoying will be considered excessively annoying.# :Excessively annoying: The state of being a hindrance to harmonious, or even interesting, discussion to such a degree that immediate termination of access is warranted or demanded.

--------------The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

You guys make science look real bad. No wonder so many people don't trust science.

Not sure about that, Kris. I think what makes science (or rather any particular theory) look bad is if it turns out not to be true when tested by experiment.

I got interested by chance in ID about 6 years ago and, since then, have been banned at all but one (ARN - which has adopted the alternative strategy of not permitting new registrations) of the ID sites that I am aware of that actually permit comments. It seemed to me that asking simple questions about ID or correcting misinformation about evolutionary theory were the usual reasons for a ban (though not the pretext, if mentioned at all).

ID's problem (as regards to science rather than politics or apologetics) in my view is simply that there is no coherent ID theory and being asked for details seems to be upsetting for ID proponents.

Solution; get a testable theory of ID, unless you know where to find one already.

You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?

What a mess you are Kris. I hope you don't end up hurting anyone, but it looks inevitable. Get help.

--------------"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers------"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

What he has posted here already, if apparently coming from an evolutionist, would be sufficient to get him banned from Uncommon Descent. (Hi, Clive)

It wouldn't have been published at all in "DI's living room".

Yet he is still here.

So come right ahead, Kris. Try and get yourself banned.

Every provocative comment you make here simply demonstrates how wide is the toleration gap between IDC and its critics.

If I were commenting on the DI site I wouldn't say things like I do here. The reason being that they are much more likely to actually discuss something than to resort to name calling and other insults. On this site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and other religion bashing sites the vitriol is so out of control that the only way to get you guys to even pay attention is to be as blunt as possible. If you all would speak and discuss things in a reasonable way, and actually follow the posting rules here, a real discussion might be possible. A 'discussion' isn't just everyone agreeing on the same things and attacking other ways of looking at those things.

The DI site has likely received so many attacks, insults, and threats that they probably just figure it's best to not allow comments at all, and frankly, I don't blame them. Just look at the responses I've gotten here and then imagine what some people have said to the people at DI.

I was banned from Panda's Thumb and the Bathroom Wall and Pharyngula. Some of my comments were either removed or never posted. I was attacked and insulted over and over again simply because I don't worship science like religious zealots worship their God, and I gave people back the shit that they started.

The vast majority of the people who post on Panda's Thumb, the Bathroom Wall, Pharyngula, and other religion bashing sites aren't really standing up for science. They're just haters who need something to hate and bash, and if it weren't religion it would just be something else. If all religious beliefs in the world were gone they would still hate something and still be looking for an internet site where they could vent their pathological anger and arrogance.

If science is as solid as some people say it is, it doesn't need anyone to constantly attack religion. Attacking religion doesn't make science stronger and it doesn't make scientists look better. In fact, when ALL people do is bash religion, in the name of science, it makes science look real weak and as though it has no credible foundation. You people are chasing more people away from science than you are attracting them to it. Why would anyone with any decency want to associate with any of you? I'd rather associate or be friends with a rabid Tasmanian Devil than any of you.

Rather than constantly and only bash religion, why don't you guys let good science speak for itself? If you know of some well done science that isn't full of inferences, mistakes, fraud, or just plain bullshit, use it as your arguments. If the science is well done but is still provisional or incomplete, don't be afraid to admit it. Stop acting like you know it all or that science knows it all. Acting like that makes you look as pompous and delusional as the most flagrant religious wackos.

If you all would spend more time making sure science is done well, you might find that more people would trust science and you might not feel the need to bash religion so much. Science's real enemy is badly done science and the people who promote science and scientists as though they're perfect and have all the concrete answers to every possible question.

I care about science and that's why it bothers me to see so-called scientists or alleged science supporters fucking it up so much. You people are not doing science any favors. You come across like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. Constantly spewing hypocritical, partisan anger, hatred, insults, and ridicule just makes the religious believers want to strengthen their beliefs and their defenses against you and science.

Many of you regularly argue that ID and creationism and religion in general don't have a satisfactory 'replacement' for the theory of evolution or just about any other aspect of science. You expect them to have that satisfactory replacement before you will even consider any of their theories or beliefs (take your pick). Well, what does science have that will satisfactorily replace all religious beliefs? For instance, does science have anything that will provide people the comfort and feeling of security they get from their religious beliefs? How about the companionship?

Most people in this country go to church mainly for the friendly fellowship. They like the fact that they're welcomed and treated nicely. Where can they go for that in science?

Yeah, you're likely thinking I'm religious and that I'm supporting religious zealots. I'm not. I'm simply thinking of how religious people must feel and why they believe what they do. If you guys (and science) were as smart as you think you are you'd be working at finding EFFECTIVE ways to get GOOD science across to the masses. It isn't going to happen if all you do is bash religion.

And what the fuck happened to enforcing the rule below? Why does such a phony rule even exist? All this board is meant for is attacking religious beliefs. Why should anyone believe a word of what any of you say when the so-called rules are constantly broken here and nothing is done about it? You all should think about cleaning up your own messes before condemning others for their behavior and belief system.

*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board.

--------------The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?

What a mess you are Kris. I hope you don't end up hurting anyone, but it looks inevitable. Get help.

Whatever you do, don't consider what was said to me or about me before I said those things.

I have limits and will not just take a lot of shit for nothing.

Funny, I don't ever threaten anonymous people I argue with on websites with physical violence, no matter what they say to me. I don't post their personal information online either, or make childish threats to call their spouses and tell them intimate details I think would damage their relationships. I guess you have different standards. That's why I suggest finding help before you hurt yourself or someone else.

I also suggest finding a thesaurus, and looking up some synonyms for "chickenshit"; I think you've hit a vocabulary roadblock there.

--------------"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers------"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

Many of you regularly argue that ID and creationism and religion in general don't have a satisfactory 'replacement' for the theory of evolution or just about any other aspect of science.

"Creationism and religion in general" encounter difficulties when claims are made that contradict observed reality. Galileo's observations brought him into conflict with the Catholic church but his observations were real and repeatable. The Catholic church dogma had to change to accommodate reality. Similarly, the age of the Earth is fairly well established at around 4.5 billion years. Common descent has recently been reinforced by comparing DNA and observing the nested hierarchy of homologies. Make reality-based claims and you can expect to be challenged if they don't match the evidence.

(Some) ID proponents make claims about reality. One claim I want to test is whether there is a 'replacement' for any aspect of evolutionary theory. Is there a theory of ID?